The ICC playing conditions relating to this part of the system come under Process of Consultation No. 3.3 (i). It states that if a 'not out' decision is being reviewed and the distance from impact to the stumps is greater than 2.5m then the third umpire passes this information to the on-field official along with: the distance from the wickets of the point of impact with the batsman, the approximate distance from the point of pitching to the point of impact, and whether the ball is predicted to the hit the stumps.

The playing condition goes onto state that: "In such a case the on-field umpire shall have regard to the normal cricketing principles concerning the level of certainty in making his decision as to whether to change his decision."

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

Yeah, but the UDRS is apparently here to correct such decisions. Make of that what you will.

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

Originally Posted by Spark

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

This obviously.

Last edited by M0rphin3; 27-02-2011 at 10:03 PM.

Originally Posted by mudrunner

give 21yo smith a break. bradmans figures for his first few tests were comparable.....

Well, clearly it's not quite working at 100% yet. What is ridiculous is the proposition that some make that because it cannot make a perfect judgement on 50-50 decisions and overturn decisions that wouldn't have been out anyway without it, we should then remove it and let the many howlers (and trust me, without the UDRS in the Ashes there would have been plenty) continue. It's patent nonsense.

No one can be sure it would have been given not out by other umpires. Others might have given it tbh. It was not a 50-50 decision, it was hitting middle halfway up. And I am not arguing against UDRS here, the 3rd umpire said the decision was up to the on field umpire and then he should have used common sense after seeing the replay on the screen and corrected his decision.

Yeah, exactly. If the rules say don't overturn it if it's more than 2.5m, then you can't apply common sense.

Argue with the rules, fine but let's not give the umpires grief for doing their job.

The rule doesn't say you can't overrule. It just says the on-field umpire decides and Billy screwed it up. Also seemingly this is not the first time. It happened with Tim Paine against England. There the batsman was given out in spite of how far down the track he was.

Middle of middle and you say doubt. Go get some brains on loan Mr Bowden.

If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time such a scenario has occurred.

Yeah, so lets just stop using UDRS just by the chance that there will be such a decision in one in every 50 odd matches, even though the decision would stay the same without it. Sticking with the system and slowly improving it would be stupid, obviously.

seems it has happened before and common sense was applied

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.RIP Craigos

So there are some inconsistencies on how the discretion is being used. These need to be ironed out to make decision making more uniform. Will happen with time I guess. Throwing UDRS out of the window is not a solution obviously. It seems a little contrived though that this had to happen against the team most reluctant to adopt UDRS!

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

Yep, and Watson vs. Zimbabwe as well was one where he was some way down the pitch. Both times it was given out, and correctly IMO - if it hits you in line, and it is clearly going to hit the stumps (as it was on both occasions) then it's out. The only reason distance down the pitch should matter is whether the word "clearly" applies.

In short, Billy Bowden was being an idiot. But how many times have we said that before?

7TH ODI Aus VS Eng
3.3Plunkett to Paine, OUT, ah, now, we have a review that could be for both caught and lbw. Paine was walking down the pitch and tried to flick the ball to leg, it's hit him on the pad and lobbed out to cover, where the catch has been taken. So England want to know if it's either lbw or caught, which Paul Reiffel decides against. The review shows that he was hit in line and it was hitting the stumps, with no edge suggested by Hot Spot. And despite being hit so far down the pitch - he's out lbw!

TD Paine lbw b Plunkett 5 (16m 7b 0x4 0x6) SR: 71.42
Interesting decision, that. The technology said it was out, smashing into middle stump halfway up, but under normal circumstances a batsman would never be given out lbw when he's that far down the pitch. Anyway, here's Ferguson.

That's lame. A stupid rule and an inconsistent one. The worst combination.

I'm still for the UDRS, but that rule is ****ing ********. No other way of putting it.

"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.